Great Basin National Park numbers are incorrect. According park stats (http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewRepo...) up +20% may, +17% June, July +16%

Two things re the unbelieveable PM:

The Las Vegas metropolitan area used about 264 gallons/capita/ day in 2006, distinguishing it as one of the largest water users in the dry western states. This pales compared to the 110-120 gallon per day level achieved by many other southwest desert American cities, and is far above the 38 gallon per day use recently achieved in Brisbane, Australia. A study recently completed by Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute states: "Our analysis suggests that continued implementation and expansion of the SNWA's outdoor conservation programs and the development of new programs that target indoor water demand could reduce total and per capita water demand much more aggressively and reduce or defer future water supply investments.", and these programs could "Delay or eliminate the need for significant capital investment to expand conveyance and treatment infrastructure." Strict conservation in Las Vegas and surrounding cities would likely obviate the need for the pipeline.

Trust SNWA to protect the environment and the human uses derived from it with including ranching, farming, hunting, fishing, recreation, and scenic values?

Pat Mulroy, the SNWA General Manager at the Sept 11 Spring Valley hearings: "We have a new ethic to protect environmental resources" and "We have an environmental record beyond reproach". And she also said re the Owens Valley: Pat Mulroy finds such comparisons ridiculous. "Owens Valley was a time and place when this country had no environmental ethic and no environmental laws. Those days are gone," she insists.

Just before a newspaper ad campaign in Nevada suggesting the Water Authority is concerned about environmental issues associated with the pipeline project, this from the Nevada State Engineer's Office: "State Engineer Tracy Taylor, in a 19-page decision, largely rejected an effort by lawyers for the Southern Nevada Water Authority to limit consideration of environmental issues in the hearings, scheduled Sept. 11-29 in Carson City. Taylor also rejected a Water Authority motion to exclude consideration of the effects on recreation and "scenic values" the ground water pumping and exportation could have."

I exchanged emails with ms Titus re the las vegas Pipeline Project. Her response was no response, a fence walking poltico answer. There are few republicans in rural NV that would vote for a pipeline proponent; she missed this opportunity which would have been to say "no way"!

Ms. Mulroy again speaks out of both sides of her mouth. While she states state and federal law protects Snake Valley she'll do whatever to avoid and stall the law:

Pat Mulroy, the SNWA General Manager at the Sept 11 hearings: “We have a new ethic to protect environmental resources” and “We have an environmental record beyond reproach”. And she also said re the Owens valley: Pat Mulroy finds such comparisons ridiculous. “Owens Valley was a time and place when this country had no environmental ethic and no environmental laws. Those days are gone,” she insists.
Just before a newspaper ad campaign in Nevada suggesting the Water Authority is concerned about environmental issues associated with the pipeline project, this from the Nevada State Engineer’s Office: “State Engineer Tracy Taylor, in a 19-page decision, largely rejected an effort by lawyers for the Southern Nevada Water Authority to limit consideration of environmental issues in the hearings, scheduled Sept. 11-29 in Carson City. Taylor also rejected a Water Authority motion to exclude consideration of the effects on recreation and "scenic values" the ground water pumping and exportation could have.”

The Los Angeles experience also warns us. LA agreed to many water concessions re Mono Lake and the Owens Valley then ignored them. The courts decided and this is where this is heading.

The water LV needs is under their feet, much thru conservation. Ms. Mulroy’s side of the conservation issue is also two sided. What I suspect she hasn’t stated is that Las Vegas uses far more water per capita than other southwestern cites such as Tucson and Albuquerque. Her statement in the article regarding Las Vegas as a transient community needing “ownership” re: conservation. Ms. Mulroy needs to get tough and require strict conservations. She is being assumptive in suggesting that neither transients nor locals will obey required strict laws. Are the transients not required to obey stop signs because they’ll be there only one or two years? In fact skilled leadership would make a case to Las Vegans as to why these laws need to be implemented and enforced – for the sustainable growth of Las Vegas.